digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

How NOT to Pay $222,000 for Downloads

abcnews.go.com — A collective shiver went up the spines of a generation of digital music users when a woman was ordered Thursday to pay more than $200,000 for sharing music files on a peer-to-peer network, but legal experts disagree about how the verdict could affect the average consumer.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • JimXugle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+78In Pennies?
    • oiooioio, on 10/10/2007, -22/+5hmm you could not share the files? I believe an article said that its illegal to SHARE the files but I didn't read anywhere about downloading them - its a good thing that the music you download from iTunes can be retrieved once your HDD crashes .... oh wait
      • mdhauke, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10The big question I have, is how is this woman supposed to pay $220,000??? Are her paychecks going to be docked for the rest of her life? Can she file for Bankruptcy and get out of it?
    • nicku, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Ass pennies.
    • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8No, it is illegal to either download or upload copyrighted materials. Because of the way P2P applications work, it is harder for a user to get caught if you only download. (The RIAA usually goes after people with songs in their shared folder.) But that doesn't make it legal.

      The Copyright Act says that it is illegal to *make copies* of songs (or other copyrighted materials) without permission of the copyright owner. If someone downloads a copyrighted song from a P2P network without permission, they are generally making an illegal copy. There's a thorough explanation here:
      http://www.techliberation.com/archives/042184.php

      In the recent Grokster opinion, the United States Supreme Court agreed that downloading copyrighted materials is illegal. This case was brought against Grokster (not individual users), but the basis of the lawsuit was that Grokster's users were using the software to make illegal downloads. Grokster argued that its software could occasionally be used for legitimate purposes, like downloading Creative Commons works. However, the Supreme Court noted that "the vast majority of users’' downloads are acts of infringement."
      http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pd ...
      • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5No, downloading or uploading copyrighted files WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER is what is illegal.


        Otherwise, I'd break the law by uploading the music I made/having others share it even if I explicitly say it is allowed.
      • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I agree with you, but please re-read my post. I say "without permission of the copyright owner." I then say "without permission" a second time for emphasis. This is also splitting hairs in the context we're talking about, downloading commercial songs over P2P networks. (This is almost never done "with permission.")
        • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Splitting hairs, or point out sloppy argument? A majority of computer users are not smart enough to put 2+2 and say we are talking about distribution without permission, but rather the generlized form I attack.
    • cbdgr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Pay them in monopoly money.
  • SOS777, on 10/10/2007, -57/+10Lawyers are itchy for cases like this. If you appreciate music then buy it legitimately. The quality will be much better too.
    • lostcannon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23good luck getting that comment dugg up :)
    • SOS777, on 10/10/2007, -34/+8Actually, I wouldn't care less. Eeheheeee
      • DavidtheDuke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It makes you wonder how many people write just for diggs. The whole system unfortunately induces (not wholly) groupthink to those vulnerable to such things. I wonder how long it will be until we have true real-world based reputation points on some site called mypoints.com or some such. I imagine the de facto standard will have people creating their own anti-popes, and such.
    • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -5/+35"The quality will be much better too."
      That is funny. I think you should do stand up.
      • alucinante, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7I think he meant.. audio , not artistic quality, which is somewhat true. but whatever.
      • zman14321, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Of course he meant audio, @houndeyex so you don't rip at 64 kbps maybe you rip at 192 or 256 or maybe you use lossless at 800 kbps, but all of the other p2p users do not. Besides a cd is 1400kbps so you can't beat that.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Not if you get a 192kbps AAC off iTunes instead of a FLAC off a torrent. You're getting lower quality and paying for it.
    • jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10FLAC FTW.
    • EmperorAwesome, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2My 320kbps mp3's that I torrented would disagree.
  • DirtySnachez, on 10/10/2007, -9/+106You guys need to fix your copyright laws, they're broken. badly.
    • depro9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Micky Mouse laws, truly.
    • bungoman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Exactly. Any law that makes a significant portion of the population criminals is a bad law.
      • Wootery, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Disagree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion - case in point: circumcision.
        • TBagwell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5explain?
          • Wootery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Circumcision is child abuse - it should be very criminal to either perform it or request it be done. Failing to take reasonable action to ensure it doesn't happen should qualify as criminal negligence, or something similar.
            Criminalization of circumcision (or, more accurately, removing the odd exception to 'child abuse' that prevents it from being classified as such) would either end its practice, or make a significant portion of the population criminals.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10There is nothing wrong with forbidding people to give away other people's intellectual property for free against their wishes.
      • technoredneck, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9What is intellectual property?
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Music is intellectual property. Movies is intellectual property. TV shows are intellectual property. Video games are intellectual property.
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You explained what may be possibly construed as being covered under the 'intellectual property' umbrella, but you have failed to explain intellectual property.
          • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1seeing that you buy something. how the hell is it illegal to give someone else a product you bought yourself. I mean sure I would get pissy if someone was making copies of a CD and selling it right in front of a music store, but still... If I had an album and my friend wanted one. I would rip it onto another cd and let him have that copy.

            How is that illegal>?

            Why is it illegal because now its dictating my social freedoms.
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Hey! Hey! You! You!
          I don�t like your girlfriend!
          That's Right! No way! No way!
          I think you need a new one "

          Unfortunately that is considered "intellectual property".
    • CthulhuDawn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10We need to fix people that still use Kazaa.
    • t0ny, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7<rant>
      Ya, our whole f**king gov. is messed up. My mom worked for 30+ years and no she is disabled and they treat her like *****. But the Mexican next door gets help and waited on hand and foot by our gov. Its said when our own citizens are treated like second class people. The only people who have it good here are the rich people.
      </rant>
    • kenadamsmith, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Doesn't make sense at all.

      Example: you driving like a crazy bitch and didn't stop at 'stop sign'... pay $300 fine(you could easily kill people); sharing some file on internet ... pay $222,000(nobody died or harm physically).

      Now tell me which one of these is more dangerous? and which one will make more harm? shouldn't the one that is more dangerous has hire fine?
  • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Yes, completely forget that the RIAA tried to put legitimate music paid by an advertiser on these very same networks that is entirely indistinguishable from the rest of the "illegal" content on the networks. Way to go!

    Article: "Currently, not all peer-to-peer networks found on the Internet are free; some charge a nominal fee — as much as a few pennies to a fraction of one — for each file downloaded. But don't be fooled; these sites are still illegal, according to Chidekel."

    That is why bittorrent.com charges you [now] to "use p2p". They seem to think that introducing people to bittorrent is the smartest alternative. Because every person who goes to bittorrent.com, will eventually try and find a cheaper alternative by "shopping around". Then the shopper finds out that bittorrent can be free! Then they sue you. They win either way, while screaming about the problem.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Music will probably have to become a loss-leader for other things, kind of like how comic strips are for newspapers and websites: You get the content itself free of charge, but you can purchase more (i.e. CDs, concert tickets, T-shirts) to support the artist.

    There's also the whole problem of the record labels owning both the songs and the means of distribution, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
  • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -15/+31Music is just information, and information wants to be free!
    • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20No, YOU want music to be free.
      • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, the artist wants to make money off of it. A sound, once created, is information, and cannot be contained.
        • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And why shouldn't artists want to make money from the music the create?
          • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1An artist creates art. A businessman sells music. Sometimes they're the same person. As a cultural example, if the Mona Lisa were known only to those who could make it to Paris, the world would be a sadder place.
          • marsvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No one is saying they can't. You're putting words into his mouth.

            Suffocating copyright and ip laws help no one but the label lining their pockets on the artists' work. Then again most big label 'artists' these days are simply eyecandy for computer generated beeps.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Google's search algorithm is just informaiton. Why aren't you demanding that they release it for other companies to use?
      • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is plenty of documentation and myriad white papers on Google's algorithm. My point is that when a piece of information is created, it cannot be uncreated nor completely contained.
    • saifatlast, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Your mom wants to be free, but I'm sure as hell not letting that bitch out of her cage.
    • Tomboys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You say that... but you've never written a hit song.
  • yunus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+85"Do the crime, Pay the fine"

    Yeah if your one of the very few unlucky people who get letters. Its like winning the lottery in reverse.
    • depro9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13People just come to your house & kill you when you win the state lottery. The RIAA just tries to kill you with homelessness & bankruptcy. Close to the same thing but really not the same.
    • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14It's also not a crime. It's a civil matter.
    • t0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Go way over the speed limit and danger other peoples lives get a $100 ticket, download a few crappy song that are valued at $1 a piece get finned $200,000? It does not seem right to me....
      • marsvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ah but some more road-kill doesn't cost big corporations money. And as we all know corporations making money for their shareholders and executives are the principles this country was founded on!
    • snoutspout, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0i lold hard
  • mpn401, on 10/11/2007, -4/+90***** the RIAA.
  • cracked22, on 10/10/2007, -16/+31usenet
    • fcmk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    • Melenor, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Yeah, uh, the idea here is to NOT pay for things. Last I checked, Usenet is $15/mo. and they cap your download at like 3GB.
      • mehss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Then you clearly have a ***** provider, some don't cap at all, and for about the same price.
    • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8dude...First rule of Usenet...
    • tekirkedicik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yeah shhhh dont wake the ***** pls
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4When they offer to settle for a measly $5,000, take their offer! In the end, it's not worth your time and money to fight it and it's unlikely that lightning will strike twice.
    • Rikkochet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Right, except for that fun article a couple of weeks ago that said if all 22,000 people being intimidated by the RIAA stamped their foot down and fought, the RIAA would immediately go bankrupt trying to bankroll 22,000 lawsuits. THAT would be worth it, but sadly most of the people getting sued are extremely un-tech-savvy.
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Except that fun article is just stupid. The RIAA wouldn't have to follow through on them if htey didn't want to.
    • Crossmenjeff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9which is great until they start doing false positives like they've been doing.
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4What false positives have there been? Every time you claim there is a false positive (70 year old GRANDMOTHER!), there is almost always a grandkid or someone that used their computer.
    • tendonut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, if you pay their out-of-court settlement, the wording of it states that they can come back and try to sue you any time they want for just about any other reason. Paying them is not helping you at all.

      I also wonder if they would ever start going after the very tech savvy people. I can see that being a losing battle on their end, since most people like that would be able to defend themselves. They never seem to go after those types of "criminals"
      • MrESaulved, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bullies tend to go after soft targets, people who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves, since bullies are not stupid and do not wish to get injured which would put a stop to their bullying they do not target knowing Geeks The RIAA is using standard bullying tactics, and to counter that use standard anti-bully tactics:
        1) Learn what the bully wants. Announce this knowledge to the bully.
        2) Refuse to give him what he wants.
        3) Announce to the bully that if he chooses to attack you over this refusal, you will defend yourself and counter attack vigorously, harming them with formidable power and ruthlessness such as your superior intellect can muster to make them desperately wish they picked on someone else.

        This helpful advice brought to you by your friendly, musician loving Geek.
  • depro9, on 10/10/2007, -8/+44"FEAR FEAR FEAR CONTROL THEM WITH FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!" Fascists ***** off!
  • xplayman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20I don't really see sharing music as a crime, just the way it's being shared.
  • TehSwat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Don't get caught
  • rockandrollmark, on 10/14/2007, -2/+22Ugh. I was hoping for some solid dark tips. Guess I should have known from the url.
  • tehjai, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0The RIAA is the least picked flavor at Baskin-Robins. Show a little support please!
  • Crossmenjeff, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6if we created a 2 dollar a year tax for everyone, we could pay off every legitimate lawsuit and essentially guarantee free music for all. it won't happen here, but in awesome land it would.
    • skunkman62, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4thats all we need are more taxes.
    • l00s3r, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I've never been sued, but you want me to pay for other people getting sued? I thought that was called insurance.
      • edzieba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Think of it as similar to the TV license fee in the UK. You own a TV, you pay a license. That license fee goes to the BBC, who then provide high- ad-free channels for you to watch. Just have a broadband license: Part of your monthly fee goes to artists/movie studios, and you can download all you want.
        • Disjunto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1yeah, but the bbc is crap, and i would prefer if i didn't have to pay a tv license :D
        • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0You can keep your BBC, meanwhile us Americans can choose to pay for quality channels like HBO with no ads and get good programming like the Sopranos, Deadwood, Rome, Big Love, etc.
        • NozE8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"meanwhile us Americans can choose to pay for quality channels like HBO with no ads and get good programming like the Violence, Violence, Violence/Intrigue, Polygamy, etc."

          A rare look inside the American mind. I will wager that you have never been to the UK and dont have a clue as to what is presented on the BBC.
        • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"meanwhile us Americans can choose to pay for quality channels like HBO"
          And you can choose to pay for music too. Then no-one will try to sue you.
          edzieba offers a way for you to have your cake and eat it too.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Are you ***** kidding? Everyone should pay for YOU to get music becuase you are a cheap piece of *****?
      In an "awesome land" people should not have to pay for other's luxuries.
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1RIAA can't be appeased. They are over-the-top greedy. A couple years ago they passed in the USA a tax on CD-Rs to compensate for lost sales, then had the law changed so they still get the money but it's again illegal to make the copies.

      Seriously, the way they are acting and positions they are taking are making me consider advocating for eliminating the concept of copyright for music entirely.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This is some Soviet style *****. You want me to subsidize YOUR entertainment? Maybe I want to pay for the services I want not what others want. Maybe I don't like music and would rather you pay taxes for me to go to the water park for free.
      • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yep, if you pay your couple of bucks a month you can download all the music you want, legally. Just like when you pay for a cable channel.
        If someone else is too cheap to chip in their couple of bucks, they run the risk of getting sued. Just like if they were tapping into your cable.
  • KhanneaSuntzu, on 10/10/2007, -23/+8*shrug* I live in the netherlands. Who cares what those idiots do in the US? Boring.
    • depro9, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Talk like that will only get your ass invaded. Respect your overlords or they will act.
    • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8If I had legal pot, I wouldn't care about anything either.
    • Avocadoes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I do too, actually. Can I ask the how likely I am to get caught?
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Uh huh. Yet you're in here reading the comments. Go figure.
  • lancetuller, on 10/10/2007, -13/+16Retarded Idiot Assholes of America.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Great... now the RIAA can say they've won a real case... -_- Did she understand how much was riding on her case not being screwed up?
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8How was her case screwed up? Unless the plaintiff makes a mistake, there isn't much even the best defense lawyers can do, when they have a client that has in fact done what she was accused of.
      • Leo21k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1She should have been using a wireless router and she shouldn't have used the same login name as she did for all her other sites like match.com
      • MrESaulved, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1OJ? Rethink your argument.
        • harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What about OJ? The prosecution screwed up.
  • pathy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I'm no lawyer, but the way I look at it...

    If you have downloaded music, weigh up the chances of you building a decent defence up and winning vs. them actually convincing people you did. Most likely, pay their settlement.

    Of course, I'm still astounded by the lack of evidence that the RIAA have to provide. This case isn't really a prime example - it seems pretty obvious that she was using Kazaa. There's still plenty that you could argue, but she had a lot of things going against her. Wasn't one of her defences that someone could have used her WiFi when she didn't even have a WiFi router?

    Using the same name as she did for her email and such on Kazaa wasn't exactly the best move, either...

    It looks to me like the RIAA are ditching / settling the cases they can't win, and taking the ones they know they will to trial.
    • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0The RIAA just loves how everyone things this lady got sued for DOWNLOADING, when in fact she didn't get sued for DOWNLOADING at all, she got sued for making the tracks available for others to download (e.g. UPLOADING, or making them available for upload, in this case, just making them available is copyright infringement). DOWNLOAD all you want, it's perfectly legal.
      • melonhedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No it isn't.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Outside the US it really is legal. Only You Americans think it is illegal.
  • SuperJason, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Download them from a subscription service, and remove the DRM. They have no way of knowing...
    • bungoman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Why do that when I have an oink account and can get the same music for free.
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Just remember that the DMCA makes stripping the DRM a federal crime, not just a civil offense. It's disgusting.
    • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Stay the hell away from DRM.
      Use emusic or amazon.
      Or get your tracks straight from the artists website.
  • soot, on 10/10/2007, -6/+70Its absolutely ***** up that any person should be ordered to pay that kind of money for sharing music in the first place. Its not even like they were physical, tangible products that she stole, its ***** data in an invisible metaphysical form, soundwaves constructed in a certain pattern that goes through your ears and into your brain.

    For enjoying music in her own privacy at nobody's expense, she will probably now never own a home, her kids are financially ***** (Have fun with that college debt), and she'll be in a position of personal fiscal ruin for many, many years, and it will have a harsh impact on her income and expenses for the rest of her living days.

    I know its sort of a bandwagon piracy-crowd mantra, but seriously, the RIAA can ***** burn in hell.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2Except...you ***** idiot...she was not sued for downloading music.
    • cmadach, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Here's the problem, soot: music (or just the file, for that matter) may be invisible, but it's still a commodity. Someone has to write it, sing it, produce it, market it, et cetera. It would be nice if music was free, but there are costs that have to be absorbed by someone

      If you don't want to pay for music, go down to the coffee shop and listen to the hippies.
      • Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3buried for flamebait.

        A well reasoned argument ruined by such immature bigotry and stereotyping.
  • SniperZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15LOL who uses bear share? just LOL
    • PRlME, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i'm a bear and i take offense to that comment
    • javamonkey79, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1probably people still using AOL, haha
  • Asriel86, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33This article is propaganda.

    "If you get a notice from the RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America], the labels, whoever, telling you to cease and desist, you want to settle very quickly for not a lot of money. That was the point of the lawsuit,"


    WRRROOONNNGGG!!!!!
    • elcaminos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8So what should you do then, fight and lose? I would settle in a heartbeat before I risked having to pay $220,000
    • ashtonium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you should read the whole article, this paragraph is at the end:

      "...This whole situation is the music industry's fault. They kept their heads in the sand and ignored the needs of their customers, while also selling products at an inflated price. So, music consumers found options that suited their lifestyle and needs with things like Napster and Bear Share," Mogerman said. "Since it took the major labels so long to create a suitable alternative, they managed to undercut their own industry by helping to instill a belief in their core audience that maybe music really should be free."
  • cakenoob, on 10/22/2007, -9/+7step 1) uninstall kazaa/Limewire
    step 2) Install Bittorrent
    step 3) PeerGuardian
    • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3step 1.5) skip to step 4
      ...
      step 4) Usenet.
      • zebbers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1step 5) a massive hosts file
        step6) ipfilter.dat
        step 7)proxies!!!!
      • cakenoob, on 10/22/2007, -3/+2haha tru dat!
    • orly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1don't tell them the secret.
    • melonhedd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6PeerGuardian is worthless.
    • t0ny, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Step 4) ?
      Step 5) Profit!
    • Disfnord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15: The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

      Note the last part of that sentence. Peer Guardian will not help you, as you will still be reported as a seeder by the tracker.
  • dspiral, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3ummm, live in another country
  • senatorpjt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The way not to pay $220,000 for downloads is to be a single mother who will never be able to pay that much in her lifetime.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4what does being a single mother have to do with earning power?
      • an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Quite a lot, I imagine. Can't take any jobs involving travel, hazardous duty, or irregular hours.
        I am sure it also has an impact on disposable income.
    • melonhedd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3She couldn't afford the music she needed to survive so she had to steal it!
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Of course, she also had records and testimony from Best Buy that she buys an absolute crapload of CDs. Not anymore I bet.
  • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7How about just not breaking the law in the first place? You have tons of options to get the music legitimately: (1) Buy it from iTunes or a comparable online store. (2) Sign up for a subscription service like Rhapsody and get an "all you can eat" plan for a few bucks a month. (3) Get off your ass, go to your neighborhood record shop, and buy a used CD (which is completely free of any DRM) for $5.

    Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility for your actions? Don't hoist the pirate flag and then whine when you get caught.
    • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Yet another person who misunderstands this. Did you even know this lady had bought 100s of other cds? It's people like you who probably were on the Jury, don't know *****. She didn't get sued for downloading anything, she got sued for uploading and distribution or making them available for distribution. Now quit assuming she stole it. EVEN if she rippped her own cds that she bought, and placed the files in the shared folder, she would have still been sued, no theft, or downloading involved at all. Get your facts straight.
    • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I was not referring to Thomas specifically. I was referring to the people above who are trying to agree on the best way to pirate music, or what to do when you get caught. Much easier just not to copy the songs in the first place.

      As for Thomas, I'm not aware of any evidence that she owned the 24 CDs of the songs in question. According to ArsTechnica, she has bought CDs from BestBuy, but this doesn't say anything about the songs in question. If I remember correctly, there were actually thousands of songs on her hard drive. The implication is that she downloaded many or most of them. (Why else was she using Kazaa?)

      If you have a better source, please let me know.
      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-defe ...
      • jacobsor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Sorry, meant to say "CDs of the 24 songs in question."
  • Dreamfiend, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15best way not to get caught, DON'T SHARE!
    Forget what your kindergarten teacher told you and just don't share.
    • Mrbngle, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0You're probably in my Soulseek ban list.
  • HeavyWave, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21just don't download pop crap, like Timberlake and *****
  • diiggii, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Ridiculous the industry is trying to make an example out of people. They're muscling individuals who do not have money into settling out of court for a few thousand dollars. If this is left unchecked the industry can go after a huge number of potential offenders. The music need to advertise and send a message to teach people of the potential harm they are doing to artist and themselves. Get clean is the message. Do you believe the music industry should go after the distributors or the users of file sharing? -----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=648
  • Kyderdog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Does anyone ever just go to the local library, You know that big building with books?
    Theres lots of CD's and movies there too.
    • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Put it to you like this. Forest Gump is considered a new release there.
  • 0xception, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5How about we open source music? anyone for GPL'ed music...
  • FlaSurfer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6If people stop buying music for a few months, the RIAA will be forced by the artists, publishers and distributors to come up with a more reasonable solution. They're entitled to protect their property rights, but $220,000? That's an outrage.
    • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"If people stop buying music for a few months, the RIAA will be forced by the artists, publishers and distributors to come up with a more reasonable solution. "

      Might just work. Know anyone who buys music?
  • trizzo92, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1(I never intend to do this)

    but why hasn't anyone b****med the RIAA? You'd expect someone...some crazy bastard who got his ass sued..

    I say we play loud music in their locations and at individual employees homes..until they quit..or go deaf XD

  • Vash3001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Torrents FTW!
  • JoeVet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13This but one small battle in the war on music. The RIAA represents a dying business. With the invention of the Internet, artists no longer need a multinational corporation to distribute their music. The distribution of Cd's never made artists money anyways. Printed music is a give away to get people to the concerts where the bands make all their money. As more and more artists come to this realization, the RIAA will die and go the way of the buggy whip makers. They once served a purpose to get the music to the listeners, now they are just parasites that benefit no one. They are ruining the reputation of the artists and alienating the fans. Prince and Nine Inch Nails are just the beginnings of an avalanche of artist rejections of the RIAA. So hold fast and be patient and watch an archaic monstrosity die an agonizing death.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The RIAA is dying but you think this is the end of the label concept?

      Pretty soon artists will be giving shares of their profits to sites myspace.com to plug their music. You can only do so much with a keyboard and your spare time, you need an existing corporate powerhouse with ad revenue and resources to float your name above the sea of other musicians.
      • JoeVet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The only ones that need the artificial media blitz provided by the labels are the Britanny spears of the world who wanna be big pop stars. Good music does not need to be floated above the noise.....it rises.
        • marsvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Sadly the noise of the talentless hacks (made by the big money corporations) will almost always out-blare even the most ardent independent artists.
      • Mfok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amen to that.
    • adooga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In essence I agree with what you say about the direction the music world is heading, but your theory about CDs only being good for promoting gigs doesn't really wash. In fact, for many, many years artists have been told not to worry about losing money on the gigs, because they'll make it up in CD sales! While I realize that this may no longer be the case, it seems that many people are ignorant of the fact that most artists don't make much, if anything from gigs OR albums. The "pay for gigs, not for albums" argument is often touted as a justification for pirating music, but this does nothing for most artists, for whom ANY income is both hard-earned and well deserved.
      • JoeVet, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Much of what you say is true. But there is a large profit to be ha on CD sales. Unfortunately that profit goes to the labels with only pennies on the dollar going to artists. When I go to a concert, a larger share goes to the artists. Unfortunately an even larger share goes to the scalpers/promoters. When I buy a tee shirt at the concert I am hopeful that at least the lions share of that money goes to where it is deserved. I do know that profits from CD's are used to sue fans and until that stops I will not buy any.
  • sphykik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2how not to pay $220,000?

    rapidshare
  • JoeVet, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Support Label free music......buy the upcoming radiohead album @ http://www.inrainbows.com
  • buildbyflying, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I call BS and second the propaganda notion. "We f*k'd this lady hard because she deserved and we'll f*k you too. Thx for your support." This isn't about "stealing" it's about revaluing a commodity in the face of improved technology.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Music is not a commodity, it is not like resources that are seemingly limitless. There is only one Eric Clapton for example.
      • marsvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe but when he's gone there will be hundreds of other artists, at least as talented, to take his place.
  • damm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Buried as inaccurate.

    This doesn't tell me how to share/steal music and get away with it. Next time ABC, Talk about Proxy's that work with Kazaa to hide who you are!
  • hardcorerikki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Artists get less than 1 dollar for each CD a label sells. You may call it retribution, but here it screams EXPLOITATION !!
    I'd prefer to shove 5 dollars in an artist's pocket for a quality CD from his van (maybe even get it signed) , rather than pay double, triple extra so he could get less, while the label vampires keep laughing all the way to the bank.
    - Interesting note: labels give even LESS to artists when distributing online, so iTunes downloads actually reduce an artist's gains even more significantly, which is why they do not recommend digital distribution.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yet if all artists were hawking CD's out of vans they would remain local acts forever. You can only go so far without corporate advertising and distribution models. Even the great acts of the 60s like Hendrix, The Who, and the Beatles had major commercial backing.
      • marsvin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if artists stayed local. Then we wouldn't have to put up with the big-names' disgusting lifestyles and their rabid followers.
  • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2What did all you bleeding hearts do before the advent of P2P and CD-R's, walk out of best buy with a shopping cart of CD's you didn't pay for?
    • Leo21k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We made mix tapes from other peoples CDs.
  • djgump35, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Why not use an mp3 recording program and record mp3s played on the internet from the soundcard. It's a better method than cassette recorders were in their time. They are a lot less traceable.
  • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So ABC/Disney is against file sharing. What a shock. Disney is the reason we have our current stupid copyright laws.
  • MrESaulved, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How it possible that a jury of people felt that $220,000, a lifetime of crushing debt, is an appropriate punishment for this person? It this worth ruining someones life over? Is it?

    Or is this just part of the absurd spectacle that seemingly is modern American living where she now, spontaneously, luckily, receives $220,000 worth of Money for being found liable for $220,000.

    Ending up, after all is said and done, as if nothing ever happened.

  • bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The case, the first lawsuit of more than 26,000 the lobbying group has filed against file sharers to make it to trial, was meant to send a message"

    I never was much into file sharing, but I got the message loud and clear: these big labels treat their customers with total contempt, and I will NEVER do business with them. I won't even listen to a song if its from an RIAA label.
  • exothermic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If the facts of the case as presented are correct, people like Jammie are dangerous because she is the absurd logical conclusion of every RIAA press release. She was sharing 1700 songs that she in all likelihood didn't purchase, serving them up to untold numbers of people. People like Jaimme will be the inspiration for knee-jerk legislation from Congress to further limit the abilities to create copies of legally owned music, create requirements to have DRM on computers sold and institute taxes on blank media because they support the copying of illegal material.


  • lcaldas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dear RIAA,

    I will not stop.
    ***** you.
    I will not pay you.
  • xquizit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2$200k worth of music?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.